Friday, September 20, 2013

*A Version of this article was published on Muftah. Vladimir Putin’s
bold New York Times op-ed
piece is a
calculated step by the “bear-wrestling” Russian president to reassert his
country’s power at the international level.

After publicizing
an improbable eleventh-hour plan to disarm Syria of chemical weapons to halt U.S.
strikes, Putin penned a public rebuke of the U.S. government. In an article
titled, Plea for Caution, Putin publicly
chided the United States for its recent military interventions in Afghanistan
and Iraq, and rebuked the true basis for its military adventures, namely, the
much-vaunted “US exceptionalism.”

While Putin’s
writing style is terse and direct, his op-ed contains various false and
misleading claims. These include Putin’s insistence he was motivated by
democratic values and international norms in proposing the disarmament plan.

In fact, Putin’s
intervention in the Syrian crisis is a calculated geopolitical move that seeks
to reinvent Russia as a super power in the international arena, and major power
broker in the Middle East.

Putin also harps
on the usual themes of Islamist extremism in the Syrian civil war, as well as
radical Islamist abuses against civilians, while ignoring the equally violent
and atrocious violations committed by the Syrian regime for the last two years.

But what is
perhaps Putin’s most blatant misrepresentation is his attempt to paint NATO’s
intervention in the 2011 Libyan conflict as leaving the country worse off.

Putin’s article
presents Libya as a country “divided into tribes and clans,” thanks to NATO’s
intervention. Contrary to Putin’s claims, however, it is the Libyan experience
that demonstrates the positive impact that international intervention in Syria could
bring. It is also a reminder of the role Russia has played in ensuring that no
such benefit would be realized by the Syrian people.

It is true that,
since Muammar Ghaddafi’s regime fell in October 2011, Libya has effectively
become a nation of various tribes and clans, and that, at times, this has
created various security issues for the North African state’s nascent political
system.

But, what Putin
failed to mention in his article is that however imperfect the Libyan
experience is now, ordinary Libyans are much better off today than during Ghaddafi’s
four-decade dictatorship.

Post-Ghaddafi Libya
has avoided large-scale civil strife and is slowly moving toward a system of
governance that in due time will likely ensure security and order. Libyans currently
enjoy a great deal of freedom, particularly when compared to their experiences
under Ghaddafi’s regime.

For the most
part, the people of Libya remain grateful to the United States and the
international community for the military intervention, which greatly degraded Ghaddafi’s
forces and precipitated the fall of the country’s authoritarian government.

Libyans are
cautiously optimistic about their nascent political experiment, and cognizant
that acts of violence and terrorism, which are largely perpetrated by foreign
radical factions, are growing pains for their infant country.

Libya’s General
National Congress (GNC) has made marked strides toward democracy despite
security challenges; the GNC still has no standing military and relies on a
fickle mercenary militia force made up of former rebels.

The GNC, along
with the current government led by Prime Minister Ali Zidan, has had an
unsurprisingly tough time building a new political system after decades of
institutional void, amid rising political overreach by Islamist groups.

But, not all is
gloom and doom in Libya. The country is still engaged in a slow process of
constitution drafting, and is pursuing a National Dialogue initiative that, if
successful, will further the country’s democratic transition. Libyan civil
society is more vibrant than ever, with various groups and organizations
pursuing their particular conceptions of the public good.

Libya is
certainly undergoing a tumultuous time, but this might well be a necessary part
of the process of birthing a new state and society based on the rule of law and
civil rights. Every step forward, no matter how unstable and slow it may be, is
viewed by many as a step away from the country’s dark political past.

Unfortunately,
at this point, a Libyan-style intervention in Syria might not be possible for
several reasons. Libya had a relatively unified opposition in the form of the
National Transition Council and a leadership figure in Mustapha Abdul Jalil who
managed to rally all Libyans factions behind the cause of fighting Ghaddafi.
Syria lacks such leadership, as well as a cohesive opposition amid the
thousands of rebel groups, domestic and foreign, that are actively fighting on
the ground. Other obstacles to intervention relate to the nature of the U.S.-Russian
rivalry in the region as Russia is determined to back its Syrian ally and challenge
US historical dominance in the Middle East. Other obstacles are traceable to
Russia’s obstructionist posture in the United Nations amidst Russian continuous refusal of any UN Sec
Council resolutions on Syria.

While Putin is
unfortunately correct in his assessment of Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya has
enjoyed monumental institutional achievements since Ghaddafi’s fall.

Libya is
arguably one of the hopeful stories of the Arab uprisings, a country in
transition that merits international help, in areas such as military training,
economic development, institutional building, and conflict resolution, and is
far from a cautionary tale for international intervention.

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Now that Obama’s
“redline” has been crossed for the second time, the world is holding its breath
for a likely military strike against Syria.

Alleged government use
of chemical weapons in the early morning hours of August 21st in
eastern Ghouta, a rebel-controlled suburb of Damascus, could be a game changer
in the protracted Syrian civil war.

Since the beginning of
the conflict, Obama has maintained that use of chemical weapons would change the
U.S. “calculus” for intervention in Syria.

On August 30, Obama
announced that he will be seeking congressional approval for any military
strike on Syria. Obama is shifting responsibility
to Congress and the American people after he boxed himself into an arbitrary
redline. In the absence of an international coalition, a UNSC resolution, and
the UK parliament’s rejection of any British involvement in military action, Obama
is trying to save face and his credibility by pursuing the constitutional path
on war making, not because he has so much regard for the document for the Constitution
didn't stop US intervening in Libya, but because geo-strategic variables are
different this time, the president had to adapt and played this so cunningly.

While the United States is
unlikely to commit any ground troops amidst general
domestic wariness for another war, surgical missile attacks and air strikes
against Syrian military facilities may yet be possible.

These incursions may
further the heretofore unachieved dream of Syrian rebels to topple President
Bashar al-Assad, and draw Syria closer toward a “Libyan moment.”

However, as things
currently stand, Obama is far from committed to a sustained course of action in
Syria, making it likely that Assad will still be in fighting shape when it is
all said and done.

Understandably, the use
of chemical weapons is a major fault line in the conflict, since the transport
and security of these products is of paramount importance to the international community.
Syria reportedly has hundreds of tons of sarin, mustard gas, and VX nerve
agents. If these were to fall into the hands of radical non-state actors, the
region could head toward a catastrophic scenario.

Syria continues to be a
hotbed for various extremist Islamist groups, which in the event of state
collapse may find themselves in control of a huge stockpile of conventional and
non-conventional weapons.

Beyond the security
concerns, there are humanitarian imperatives at stake, as well. The use of
chemical weapons is the ultimate crime against humanity, as is the continued
massacre of thousands of Syrians.

More than 100,000
Syrians have perished in the conflict and the international community has
provided nothing but perfunctory condemnation. Western reluctance to intervene
in Syria has done little but prolong the burgeoning civil war.

Assad’s latest alleged
use of chemical weapons could be an indication of his increasing despair in the
face of the mounting strength of rebel factions all around Damascus.

Alternatively, it could
indicate a new found confidence as his forces, with the help of Hezbollah and
the international backing of Russia and China, further consolidate their hold
against rebel advances.

By gassing his own
people, Assad could also be testing Obama’s “redline”, hoping that the
international community will split on the appropriate means to respond to
chemical weapons use.

This standoff within the
international community could drag on for weeks while Assad’s forces break the
will and resolve of the rebels.

But Assad may have
misread Obama’s will to enforce his “redline,” which could well prove to be a
grave miscalculation on the part of the Syrian president.

As currently imagined, the U.S. military response will be far from
sufficient to end the conflict in Syria, amounting to little more than knee-jerk
measures against Assad’s transgression of a fault line set by Obama many months
ago.

Aimed against select pro-Assad targets, the strikes may help
degrade the air and ground capabilities of Syrian government forces. These, however, will be nothing more than a slap on the Syrian
president’s wrist.

In the past, this brand of delimited strikes has not served U.S.
interests well.

The one exception was the Libya intervention, where a more viable
opposition in the form of the Libyan National Transitional Council and wider
support among the international community gave the strikes a durability that
ultimately led to the toppling of Muammar Ghaddafi.

But, Russia and China felt they were duped in the Libyan case, as the United
States went beyond the UN mandate to enforce a no fly zone and actively engaged
in supporting opposition efforts at regime change.

Since then, Russia has dug in its heels about possible intervention in
Syria. At the same time, the United States has increasingly felt the need to
reassert its power in the region, even if this must come through limited,
non-committal military action.

Short of sustained and decisive international military
support, Syria’s rebels appear unable to topple Assad. Without international
intervention, the country may split into two parallel de facto regions of
influence – one controlled by the rebels, and one controlled by the Assad
regime.

While strikes would degrade the Syrian government’s military, they will
only significantly alter the dynamics of the protracted civil war if sustained
and coupled with other decisive military action against Assad's conventional
and non-conventional military capabilities.

Only in this case could Syria experience a Libyan moment for its
dictator.

In the absence of an international framework, President Obama must
clearly articulate what the objectives of a military strike against Syria would
be.

The Assad regime has shown utter contempt and disregard for
the Syrian people, shelling and now gassing at will in an attempt to punish
those who dare defy the president’s dictatorial rule.

Obama has pigeonholed
the United States into a military strike, as the country’s credibility and
geostrategic prestige risk further deterioration in the region. But reluctant military action is not the solution. The United States should instead work to engage all parties, with the help
of Russia and China, to force a negotiated settlement and invest in
humanitarian aid to rebuild a devastated Syria.